Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues

Science Education

Volumn 90, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 632-655

  Kolstø, Stein Dankert ^a   Bungum, Berit ^b   Arnesen, Erik ^a   Isnes, Anders ^b   Kristensen, Terje ^b   Mathiassen, Ketil ^b   Mestad, Idar ^c   Quale, Andreas ^b   Tonning, Anne Sissel Vedvik ^a   Ulvik, Marit ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c University of Bergen Library ^*  (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745969136     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20133     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans. Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classroom. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3. Aikenhead, G. (1990). Scientific/technological literacy, critical reasoning, and classroom practice. In S. P. Norris & L. M. Phillips (Eds.), Foundations of literacy policy in Canada. Calgary: Detselig.
4. Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285-302.
5. Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking and science education. Science & Education, 11, 361-375.
6. Bell, R. L. (2003). Exploring the role of nature of science understandings in decision-making. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues in science education (pp. 63-79). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
7. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377.
8. Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 72(2), 185-201.
9. Cole, S. (1992). Making science. Between nature and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116-127.
11. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
12. Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4-10.
13. Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction: Research findings and recommendations (The Delphi Report): Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association. ERIC ED 315 423.
14. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-755.
15. Guba, E. G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation (Vol. 8). Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
16. Hardwig, J. (1985). Epistemic dependence. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(7), 335-349.
17. Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693-708.
18. Kolstø, S. D. (2001 a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310.
19. Kolstø, S. D. (2001b). "To trust or not to trust, ..." Pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877-901.
20. Kolstø, S. D. (2004). Students' argumentations: Knowledge, values and decisions. In E. K. Henriksen & M. Ødegaard (Eds.), Naturfagenes didaktikk - en disiplin i forandring? (pp. 63-78). Proceedings from the 7th Nordic Conference on Science Education. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget AS.
21. Kolstø. (2005). Science education students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Paper presented at the ESERA conference 28 August-1 September 2005 in Barcelona, Spain. Available at www.uib.no/people/pprsk/Dankert/
22. Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J. M. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81(5), 515-532.
23. Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24. KUF. (1993). Laereplan for videregående opplæring. Naturfag (Curriculum for upper secondary. Integrated science). Oslo: Kirke-, undervisning-og forskningsdepartementet (Ministry of Education and Research).
25. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes. UK: Open University Press.
26. Lehrer, K. (1977). Social information. Monist, LX(4), 473-487.
27. Longino, H. (1983). Beyond "bad science": Sceptical reflections on the value-freedom of scientific inquiry. Science, Technology and Human Values, 8(1), 7-17.
28. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29. Longino, H. E. (1997). Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, science and the philosophy of science (pp. 39-58). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
30. McMullin, E. (1982). Values in science. In P. D. Asquith & T. Nickles (Eds.), Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.
31. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: Nuffield Seminar Series: Interim Report V3.
33. Nelson, L. H., & Nelson, J. (Eds.). (1997). Feminism, science and the philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
34. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
35. Norris, S. P. (1995). Learning to live with scientific expertise: Toward a theory of intellectual communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79(2), 201-217.
36. Norris, S. P., & Philips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 947-967.
37. OECD. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life. First results from PISA 2000. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
38. Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: what happens when the reader's world meets the world on paper? International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 317-327.
39. Quine, W. V. O. (1961). From a logical point of view. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
40. Rampton, S., & Stauber, J. (2001). Questioning Authority. In Trust us, we're experts - How industry manipulates science and gambles with your future (Ch. 11). New York: Penguin Putnam.
41. Ratcliffe, M. (1999). Evaluation of abilities in interpreting media reports of scientific research. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1085-1099.
42. Ravetz, J. R. (1997). Simple scientific truths and uncertain policy realities: Implications for science education. Studies in Science Education, 30, 5-18.
43. Rippen, H. (1999). Criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the Internet, [World Wide Web]. Health Summit Working Group [2003, 01.07). Available at hitiweb.mitretek.org/docs/policy. html
44. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 35, 1-44.
45. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Student conceptualisation of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409.
46. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004a). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27.
47. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93.
48. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138.
49. Siegel, H. (1988). Rationality and epistemic dependence. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20, 1-6.
50. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
51. Yang, F.-Y. (2004). Exploring high school students' use of theory and evidence in an everyday context: The role of scientific thinking in environmental science decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1345-1364.
52. Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
53. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367.
54. Zeidler, D. L., Lederman, N. G., & Taylor, S. C. (1992). Fallacies and student discourse: Conceptualizing the role of critical thinking in science education. Science Education, 76(4), 437-450.
55. Ziman, J. (1968). Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimensions of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science. What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57. Zimmerman, C., Bisanz, G. L., & Bisanz, J. (1998). Everyday scientific literacy: Do students use information about the social context and methods of research to evaluate news briefs about science? The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 44(2), 188-207.